[MINI] Technic Mini Build Contest - Information Topic

[Tamas Juhasz]

If others agree to this I am willing to let it go. My point was that the model could be made without cutting things, but pneumatic tubes could be an exception.

And all tubes together count as a single part or every tube is a part?

Thanks for the answer.

I'll use official lengths, in the meantime I realised, that there are a large selection of official lengths:

http://www.bricklink...P&catString=530

So I think every entry can be made only with official lengths. I will cut my tubes precisely to the bricklink's lengths, because I don't have all of them. So you can cut your tubes, if you have an 50L one, and you need two 19L, then you can cut. It's equal with that if you have two original 19L tubes. IMHO. Or you can make eight 4L tubes from a 32L one. There are many official lengths.

And all tubes together count as a single part or every tube is a part?

I understand other's viewpoint about it, and for me it's okay, when each tube counts as one part, according to the current technic sets. Edited June 12, 2014 by Mbmc

[Captainowie]

If others agree to this I am willing to let it go. My point was that the model could be made without cutting things, but pneumatic tubes could be an exception.

And all tubes together count as a single part or every tube is a part?

I suggest that the easiest way around this is to disallow pneumatics altogether. What's been the smallest set with a pneumatic system? I'll wager it's got a part count much higher than 200.

Incidentally, 8455, the king of pneumatic sets, is one set that required the builder to cut the tubes to length.

Edited June 12, 2014 by Captainowie

[Jim]

Okay, so recap.

• Cutting tubes is allowed
  
• Official available lengths only (so it reflects the actual available tubes, see bricklink)
  
• Every tube counts as a single part, so 10 tubes is 10 parts
  

Something like this?

Or should we just ignore the available lenghts rules and allow every length.

I suggest that the easiest way around this is to disallow pneumatics altogether. What's been the smallest set with a pneumatic system? I'll wager it's got a part count much higher than 200.

Agreed, I shouldn't have allowed Pneumatics for the mini contest. But since I already allowed it, we need to work this out.

[Tamas Juhasz]

I suggest that the easiest way around this is to disallow pneumatics altogether. What's been the smallest set with a pneumatic system? I'll wager it's got a part count much higher than 200.

8040 - 162 parts:

http://www.bricklink...em.asp?S=8040-1

Or 8044 - 198 parts:

http://www.bricklink.com/catalogItem.asp?S=8044-1

In a technic competition, where the main rule is, you can build anything from max. 200 parts, why should be pneumatic (which is one of the main systems/technical features in technic) disallowed?

You don't like pneumatics? Why can't be in a mini set? Anyway, real mini sets are significantly less than 200 parts, and the rule says 200. Maybe we see this contest too much from the viewpoint of the official sets.

• Cutting tubes is allowed
  
• Official available lengths only (so it reflects the actual available tubes, see bricklink)
  
• Every tube counts as a single part, so 10 tubes is 10 parts
  

Something like this?

Yes, exactly.

Edited June 12, 2014 by Mbmc

[Jim]

In a technic competition, where the main rule is, you can build anything from max. 200 parts, why should be pneumatic (which is one of the main systems/technical features in technic) disallowed?

Because we are looking for an official Mini model and none of these ever have pneumatics. That's why I disallowed PF and other electronics. So in all fairness; I should indeed have disallowed Pneumatics, but I didn't

The Mini sets look like this and normally they contain around 150 parts. I have increased the part limit a bit, but this is still the kind of entry I was expecting.

Or something like this:

Or this:

[Alasdair Ryan]

Does this count?

Set 8040-1 Building Set

162 Parts, 1984

[Jim]

Back in the days, the sets contained a lot less parts than the recent ones.

But according to my own rules; this would quality for entry

To make a comparison; this was the flagship in 1984. 347 parts!

And this was the mini set (no pneumatics):

[Alasdair Ryan]

But according to my own rules; this would quality for entry

I just thought I might jump on the band wagon with the rest of the 'contest rule challengers'.

[Jim]

I just thought I might jump on the band wagon with the rest of the 'contest rule challengers'.

I would be suspicious if you didn't

[Tamas Juhasz]

Because we are looking for an official Mini model and none of these ever have pneumatics. That's why I disallowed PF and other electronics. So in all fairness; I should indeed have disallowed Pneumatics, but I didn't

Ok, so this means, the most complex function should be a worm gear/8t gear drive or a pullback motor? It's also okay, then I will make an entry with attention to this. Maybe I misunderstood the rules. So we shouldn't put any function in that wasn't ever in official mini sets, like actuators, driving rings, gearboxes, etc.? If we make a more complex model, that's at a disadvantage?

Edited June 12, 2014 by Mbmc

[Jim]

Ok, so this means, the most complex function should be a worm gear/8t gear drive or a pullback motor? It's also okay, then I will make an entry with attention to this. Maybe I misunderstood the rules. So we shouldn't put any function in that wasn't ever in official mini sets, like actuators, driving rings, gearboxes, etc.? If we make a more complex model, that's at a disadvantage?

You did understand the rules correctly and I allowed Pneumatics. So go ahead and use Pneumatics if you will.

But the purpose of the contest is create a mini model that's as close to an official mini model as you can get. Imagine your set being designed and sold by LEGO.

[Alasdair Ryan]

But the purpose of the contest is create a mini model that's as close to an official mini model as you can get. Imagine your set being designed and sold by LEGO.

But in 2014 not 1980?

[Tamas Juhasz]

Ok, clear. I can imagine that in the future a mini set will be released with pneumatics. Why not? Ok, would be expensive compared to the parts count, but would be worth buying also because of the pneumatic parts.

Edited June 12, 2014 by Mbmc

[Paul B Technic]

This sounds really good, I am keen to see what other people can come up with :)

[dikkie klijn]

So i think this would be modelteam?

[LegoMathijs]

I have some ideas for the contest, lets see what I can build with 200 parts. Always like to put a lot of details in a model

[Jim]

So i think this would be modelteam?

Though one. I don't think this model would make it as an official Technic set, but it is an example why I accepted Model Team at first. It's definitely more Technic than Model Team.

[dhc6twinotter]

Can we change the rules to allow up to 350 pieces?

Just kidding. This is a fun challenge, but is harder than I thought. Now on to plan B….

[NevynPA]

8868 also required cutting of tubes.

[Bzroom]

Structural integrity is one of the pinnacles of an official LEGO set.

Could someone fake the assembly enough for a photo? Such as missing studs on the backside that you can't see to keep the parts count down, or loose construction where if you actually played with it, it would fall apart and wobble around? That would be very un-LEGO-like.

I propose that we present a video of the model actually being played with to prove that it's indeed what it appears to be.

[jorgeopesi]

Structural integrity is one of the pinnacles of an official LEGO set.

Could someone fake the assembly enough for a photo? Such as missing studs on the backside that you can't see to keep the parts count down, or loose construction where if you actually played with it, it would fall apart and wobble around? That would be very un-LEGO-like.

I propose that we present a video of the model actually being played with to prove that it's indeed what it appears to be.

The models are too small, I think everyone can build them with the pics and see its integrity. Technic is integrity, fuctionality and playbility for children and for me too.

[allanp]

Or maybe post the ldd file or something. I'll probably post a vid of my entry when it's finished anyway.

[Lipko]

Structural integrity is one of the pinnacles of an official LEGO set.

Could someone fake the assembly enough for a photo? Such as missing studs on the backside that you can't see to keep the parts count down, or loose construction where if you actually played with it, it would fall apart and wobble around? That would be very un-LEGO-like.

I propose that we present a video of the model actually being played with to prove that it's indeed what it appears to be.

I agree on making an LDD version should be mandatory. Two months is pretty long so it should be enough, we can see it by the number of entries so far.

A mandatory video seems to be more problematic.

[jorgeopesi]

For me a video is easier than the LDD version , I will try the structural integrity giving it to my two years daughter .

[KirTech LAB]

For me a video is easier than the LDD version

Absolutely agree!!!